O'Reilly: "The University of Hawaii Should Be Ashamed"
 

ttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148579,00.html

I wholeheartedly agree. This jackass should be considered a modern-day Benedict Arnold, with his statements providing aid and comfort to our terrorist enemies. I'm exceedingly proud that this idiot hasn't spoken at my university and if the administration decided to invite him, I would be up at arms and withdraw my alumni donation. But i suppose the vapid types in blue states will pay this fraud good money to travel to and from their states spreading his moronic message. Not to mention this guy claims he's an Indian and no tribe in the country claims him. Hell, I'M more Indian than he is.

Re: O'Reilly: "The University of Hawaii Should Be Ashamed"
 

Heh, I knew it was a matter of time before this shit reached GC.

It probably really only matters to me, but much of his visit was funded by private donations rather than state money.

I went to to campus last night and was unsuccessful in getting a seat in the 300-seat Art Auditorium, but did get to watch his speech via video feed. Campus security was not ready for the thousands that showed up.

While I do not agree with his views on 9/11 and U.S. policy and many people find him offensive, what I find most terrifying and most offensive is the government's efforts to try and silence him. I don't see my alma mater supporting Dr. Churchill (and I think he's a moron too)...rather, I see my alma mater supporting protecting the right to speak.

So really, this really isn't about living in a blue or red state -- and I'm not surprised that Bill O'Reilly has his tighties in a wad again. I'd be too if someone said Fox News was a "urinary sort of journalism". Tee hee hee har har. The University of Colorado gives him the paychecks. UH-Manoa has nothing to be ashamed about.

That being said, my annual alumni donation check will be in the mail next week. :)

Re: O'Reilly: "The University of Hawaii Should Be Ashamed"
 

What a competent military commander that got screwed over by partisan politics?

Or did you mean the "traitor" thingy? (funny because he's technically a patriot or loyalist up here).

Okay seriously now: the more attention you give this jackass the longer you extend his 'flash in the pan' moment of fame, or in this case notoriety... so the more morons like O'Reilly complain about him - the more attention the draw to the him... idiocy in reporting feeding idiocy in academia a vicious and self-perpetuating cycle:rolleyes:

Wow. Bill O'Reilly looks more and more retarded the farther you get into reading that. Wait- he saves himself by talking about Anna Kournikova.

Re: Re: O'Reilly: "The University of Hawaii Should Be Ashamed"
 

Slight hijack...I'm curious as to why you think Arnold got screwed over by partisan politics. Now, it's true he wasn't popular with his fellow officers, and perhaps even true that he was passed over for advancement within the Army because of his lifestyle (kind of a socialite). However, it seems to me that he truly was a traitor; he was paid money by the "enemy" at the time, the British army.

I absolutely, positively don't agree with the guy...but you can't stop the U. of Hawaii from having him as a speaker. It's never a bad thing to have a wide range of views presented to students (even if some of those views are way off the charts).

I'll say again what I've said before on O'Reilly; I feel like he's a much better speaker in person than he comes across as on TV or in print. But that's just my opinion, and I know there are PLENTY of people who disagree with me on that.

ETA: To clarify, I would be upset if my tuition were going to something like this.

while I disagree with this guys comments, I can't endorse any silencing of him. There is a lot of things out there that are cruel and painful to hear, but we hear them anyway. This one took place on American soil, so does that mean we should punish it? I can't do it and it's the sacrifice of free speech. You hear the good with the bad.

OTW: How is the federal government trying to restrict this man's speach?

While I disagree with just about everything that this idiot says, the fact that he can say it is one of the great things about this country. Those of you that would have him silenced should really question why it is you want to silence him. Sure, he's wrong. Sure, he says some moronic things.

Really though, the guy is likely making a ridiculous amount of money by spouting this garbage. The more we pay attention to him, the more his words are worth. He's getting rewarded by the capitalist system that he at least claims to abhor.

I can't make the link work.

Obviously, Churchill is a pretty big story here. At least it gives the big time (wannabe) politicians in the Colorado Legislature a way to get and keep their names in the news.

Putting all controversy regarding his essays, etc. aside, the scariest part of this situation to me is that it opens the door for our part time legislators to attempt to control higher education. Whether you agree with the tenure system or not, the absolutely worst people to make decisions about it are politicians.

If you think bizarre decisions are made in the academic ivory towers, consider your statehouses.

We tend to either cry about (or decry) The First Amendment and Freedom of Speech, but to silence a dissident voice really does have a chilling effect on the rights granted us by the Constitution. Lawmakers should understand that.

Finally, as someone pointed out above, college is about hearing and considering different viewpoints. The vast majority of university students will take this situation for just what it is -- one man's radical opinion.

Whether it is right or wrong, they'll figure it out.

I didn't read the link, but I heard a speech by this nut job on the radio yesterday. For those who don't know much about Ward Churchill:

-He got his job through Affirmative Action, claiming to be a Native American. No tribe claims him, and it looks as if no tribe honestly could do do.

-He says that he is not federally funded. He should look at his paycheck - that's not all alumnae funding that's paying his salary.

-He thinks that at least half of the people in the WTC were "Little Eichmanns", therefore, their deaths were almost necessary. He has stated that he feels bad for the firemen who died, but not the policemen.

-He feels that, if any building should have been attacked, it was the Pentagon. More civilians work at the Pentagon than military personnel.

As has been said, I may disagree with what he says, but I'll defend his right to say it. In this case, the more he talks, the more people will realize that he's one of the biggest jerks or liars who walked the planet - and the faster his "star" will crash and burn.

I believe tomorrow that the KKK will be doing a book signing tour through America and speaking at every public university it finds.

Don't worry, they won't require that the public pays for their literature; it will be done through private donations. Of course, the university, tax payers, students, and parents still do end up paying when someone uses university resources, but hey whatever.

-Rudey

For those who are unable to open the link, it's because the URL is missing an "h" in the "http".

I know the University of Oregon cancelled his lecture this month. It's been said on more than one occasion that the governor of Colorado wants him fired. And while most of his opinion doesn't count to the rest of us -- Bill O'Reilly calls him the "anti-American professor". Thoughts of McCarthyism come to mind.

To me, the story isn't about Churchill's three and a half year old speech. It is the systematic campaign against any scholarship that questions, argues or in any way challenges the government.

And don't even get me started on our local news media. It's as if they've all jumped on the O'Reilly bandwagon....they're falling over themselves to condemn the guy! They can finger point, roll their eyes, and shake their heads sadly until kingdom come. The warning is out there and clear, kids. Anyone associating with "unpatriotic rubbish" will be instantly painted with the same broad brush.

None of this was the government, per se - and the comparisons to McCarthyism are specious at best. You're mistaking institutions and people who support the government for actual, institutional actions by the government. It may or may not become a slippery slope argument eventually, but for right now, "Red Scare" comparisons are as alarmist and flaky as Churchill's own declarations regarding capitalism, to my mind.

Again, who is supporting this campaign? Is it really against legitimate scholarship?

While there are certainly segments of the vocal minority, of which O'Reilly comiserates, that get quite a bit too affrontary for my tastes, I really just don't see this as systematic - especially considering research that identifies tenured professors as being overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic (which are not identical, contrary to GP's signature's implications).

I guess the bottom line is that, from a fairly moderate viewpoint, it seems like both sides are identifying only the extremes and accepting those as the 'norm.' It's caustic and frustrating.

The guy's a dick, Sandy - his "Little Eichmanns" statements are absurd and patently offensive to a huge number of people, and even worse: it's entirely unnecessary to making his point. The reason for his comparison is that, much like Eichmann, the people in the WTC are just "doing their job" and thus are attempting to free themselves from blame and accept innocence post hoc (which he infers Eichmann received). Rather than saying this, he invokes the Nazi party, surely understanding the impact of such words. It's insane.

(as proof . . . peep
this article rejoining revisionist holocaust denial - then think of how this relates to his theories on Native American genocide and the government . . . )

He's not saved by the fact that he uses the phrase "little Eichmann" as a category for classifying people. He knows the connotation, and he's choosing to abuse it - except for now, it's even more clear why he's doing it . . . soap-boxing for an unrelated issue is the ultimate dick move, especially when it's still not freeing Leonard Peltier or returning wealth or prosperity to Native American populations in the US.

Gads! I remember once the Pitt Program Council paid untold thousands of dollars to this horrible, racist guy (Louis somebody-or-other) so that he could come to our student union and spew vitriol and hatred for an hour or so. I guess it was their attempt to be "cutting edge".

Being that Pitt had a rather apathetic student body at the time, turnout was pretty sparse. A friend who covered the lecture for the school newspaper said that there were only about 30 people in the grand ballroom and that included the goofy looking guys in bowties standing behind the speaker trying to look menacing.

That sticks out in my mind as a huge waste of "your student activities fee".

KR, did you ever take a class by Dr. Ted Weindt (and I'm sure I spelled that wrong)? He was forever saying that there Pitt had no activistism in its student body - with such sorrow in his voice!

He was crazy! (he passed away my senior year). Total political pimp, he'd done so much. Got much more out of his class when he talked about his own experiences- much more entertaining.
Pitt really doesn't have much activism... Seems that kids at Pitt are too busy- commuting, working, other activities.

This past week Carnegie Mellon brought in a very similar speaker to the one being discussed here... can't remember his name, who knows, could've been the same one. Stirred up a bunch of shit.